[Albion] Jesse Lingard

[BrianWade4]

This

Double this

Lightweight. Not keen to have him back. Overall, disappointed considering his goalscoring record at Brum

 

[Nathan]

Double this

Lightweight. Not keen to have him back. Overall, disappointed considering his goalscoring record at Brum

He didn't have a good goal scoring record at brum.

Thought he did well in the end with us, just took a while for him to settle in the team and find his feet.

 

[stripeyshark]

I thought I was the only one that spotted that....very annoyed here too

Having said that I would take him back on loan for the season happily

Never noticed but just watched it. What a nob.

 

[stripeyshark]

Needs more Thyme.

Then he'll be tasty.

You saying he's a chicken?

 

[albion534]

Take him in a heartbeat

 

[Machiavelli]

Take him in a heartbeat

Me too, but I can hear three letters being uttered...

 

[GreersElbow]

Decent, but nothing more, far rather have Barnes and rather give a player we own a go rather than paying money for an ok player who isn't ours

Who did we have, aside from Orlandi who was injured, who was creative and intelligent enough to play behind the striker? That has been our major issue for some time, the link between midfield and the forwards. Orlandi is that link, but when he's out we don't have it. I thought Lingard could fill that roll.

 

[albionite]

Didn't do it for me, had one or two good games but made me wish we still had Barnes

 

[Marshy]

He got better and better the more he played, another reason we must persist with the likes of Dunk, JFC, Ince and March.

The rewards will be huge.

 

[perseus]

Who did we have, aside from Orlandi who was injured, who was creative and intelligent enough to play behind the striker? That has been our major issue for some time, the link between midfield and the forwards. Orlandi is that link, but when he's out we don't have it. I thought Lingard could fill that roll.

Its Jake Forster-Caskey and it might be valid to ask who do you prefer Forster-Caskey or Lingard? Not much to choose between the two. I favour Forster-Caskey by a fraction because he is left-footed and more of a midfielder whereas Lingard is a lightweight second striker.

I would play Lualua in the role. his movement out of defence against Forest in the last minute was better than anything Lingard did in the same role. Lualua has better acceleration and a better sprint speed as well. Kazenga is not quite so clinical in front of goal.

 

[keaton]

Who did we have, aside from Orlandi who was injured, who was creative and intelligent enough to play behind the striker? That has been our major issue for some time, the link between midfield and the forwards. Orlandi is that link, but when he's out we don't have it. I thought Lingard could fill that roll.

We did have Lopez, March, JFC, Agustein, Stephens who could do that role. This season we'll also have Crofts back

Lingaard didn't link midfield and attack, he may have done in if played in the right position but the last few months of the season (when he was playing every game) where when the issue was at it's worst.

 

[GreersElbow]

We did have Lopez, March, JFC, Agustein, Stephens who could do that role. This season we'll also have Crofts back

Lingaard didn't link midfield and attack, he may have done in if played in the right position but the last few months of the season (when he was playing every game) where when the issue was at it's worst.

Lopez is a right midfield, March is a natural winger who was being experimented in the centre. Agustien was out of favour and Stephens was played as a box to box. None of which are comparable to the position Lingard is naturally suited to.

 

[spring hall convert]

Had a great knack for finding space that none of our other players could. More to come from him I think

That was my key observation (outside of the lightweight stuff, (which was a little overstated I thought) he really suited Oscar's desire to have the frontplayers moving around, he found little pockets of space between the midfield and defensive and seemed comfortable on the ball anywhere on that attacking line.

He was a bloody hard worker as well.

Probably not quite good enough to break in at United but he'll still have a decent career at the right club.

 

[GreersElbow]

Its Jake Forster-Caskey and it might be valid to ask who do you prefer Forster-Caskey or Lingard? Not much to choose between the two. I favour Forster-Caskey by a fraction because he is left-footed and more of a midfielder whereas Lingard is a lightweight second striker.

I would play Lualua in the role. his movement out of defence against Forest in the last minute was better than anything Lingard did in the same role. Lualua has better acceleration and a better sprint speed as well. Kazenga is not quite so clinical in front of goal.

Whilst this is true, we need to put this into the context of Garcia's philosophy, formation and tactics. Lua Lua was better suited out wide. My understanding that Lingard was an inside forward and we'd effectively play with one winger and March being experimented as a play maker. I don't think that was successful at all.

But hypothetically and removing that context then yes, it's easier to say who could have played where and when.

 

[perseus]

PS: With Mata and Zaha, Lingard has not got a hope of getting in the United first XI.

If Buckley, Macca, Lualua or Forster-Caskey are fit, I don't think he is good enough for the Brighton side either.

I think I would take him (not sure) as a reserve on a free transfer at £6K a week, maybe? Not even sure about that? I wouldn't mind Zaha on a loan with options for a permanent transfer.

Mata to Southampton

 

[keaton]

Lopez is a right midfield, March is a natural winger who was being experimented in the centre. Agustien was out of favour and Stephens was played as a box to box. None of which are comparable to the position Lingard is naturally suited to.

Lingaard didn't play in the position he was suited to, he played on the wing. If his role was to link attack and midfield, he failed in my opinion.

Lopez is a play maker, he was the obvious player to play centrally and link midfield and attack. All of the player's I named could have played behind the striker linking midfield and attack last season or this.

 

[keaton]

He got better and better the more he played, another reason we must persist with the likes of Dunk, JFC, Ince and March.

The rewards will be huge.

BUt that's a reason to not re-sign him as him playing would almost certainnly mean JFC and/or March not

 

[severnside gull]

PS: With Mata and Zaha, Lingard has not got a hope of getting in the United first XI.

If Buckley, Macca, Lualua or Forster-Caskey are fit, I don't think he is good enough for the Brighton side either.

I think I would take him (not sure) as a reserve on a free transfer at £6K a week, maybe? Not even sure about that? I wouldn't mind Zaha on a loan with options for a permanent transfer.

Mata to Southampton

Not sure how best to summarise the areas where I disagree with you........

.......perhaps the first sentence


...........and the last sentence


..............oh, and the sentences in between those two

 

[Machiavelli]

Not sure how best to summarise the areas where I disagree with you........

.......perhaps the forst sentence


...........and the last sentence


..............oh, and the sentences in between those two

Couldn't agree more. Imagine the scenario: Lingard gets offered 6k a week to sit on the bench at Brighton, because some guy called Perseus on NSC deemed this is his worth.

 

[perseus]

I am not Paul Scholes

I'd sooner pay the extra dosh for Stephen Ward, who is faster just as clinical in front of goal and can play full back.

If Stephen Ward is only worth £10K a week, I would say Lingard should be at £6K a week comparison. Ward is worth the extra.

Lingard did show enthusiasm and intelligence though and did not keep on falling over like an older player who could play the same role.